Magee v. Manhattan Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
92 U.S. 93 · 1875
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2012 · most notably Equitable Surety Co. v. United States ex rel. McMillan (1914), Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Central Stock Yards Company (1909)
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 23 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Boyd · King v. Baldwin · People v. Jansen · Moss v. Riddle & Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A surety cannot rest supinely, close his eyes, and fail to seek important information, and then seek to avoid liability under the guaranty by claiming he was not supplied with such information.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The plea does not set forth any of the circumstances attending the execution and delivery of the bond. It does not aver that there was any misrepresentation, anything fraudulently kept back, or any opportunity to make disclosures on the part of the company, or any inquiry by the sureties, before the bond was delivered. Nor is it averred that the company was aware that the sureties were ignorant of the facts complained of. It is, perhaps, to be inferred from the plea that the fact was — as the record, aside from the plea, shows it to have been — that the bond was executed at Mobile, and sent by Voorhees by mail to the company in New York. If this were so, the company, upon receiving it, was under no obligation to make any communication to the sureties. The validity of the bond could not depend upon: their doing so. The company had a right to presume that the sureties knew all they desired to know, and were content to give the instrument without further information from any source. Under these circumstances, it was too late, after the breach occurred, to set up this defense.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.